The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-04-21
THE
MichieE Insurance Case.
SUPREME C0URT-.-kpRIl TERM,
1887,
JUSTICE M'cuLLr, PRESIDING.
BEEORE A Jury.

SHuIltS hltulCiS vs.. IIdItiCiu
Insurance Co. and others.
This important case opened on
Tuesday last, continued throughout
yesterday, and was closed this
morning. Itarose out of the burning
of plaintiff store and stock on the
4th August, 1886, for which he
claimed the payment of 10000,
amount of insurance on stock.
Mr.. G. o. Berger, on the part of
three insurance companies, contest
ed the claim, hence the present suit.
Mcssrs. Whiting and Creighton APP
peared for the plaintiff; Messrs.
Dare, Hatch and Dole for defend
ants, appellants. Mr.. Pierre Jones
acted as interpreter, the plaintiff
preferring to speak French.
The following gentlemen were EN-
panelled as iury:-Messrs. w. w.
Hall, L. Marshall, NJ. Green, +. II.
Hendry, II. j. Agnew, George
Stratcmeyer, II. Lewis, G. j. Nc
earthly, Major Hills, A. NJ. Mellis,
II. A. Parmalee and Mr.. Marshall.
The Hartford Insurance Co. was
represented by Mr.. j. w. Cofran,
of San Francisco, as special agent,
and Mr.. G.. o. Berger represented
the other companies Interested.
The first witness placed on the
stand was Mr.. Charles Michiels, the
plaintiff. His testimony related
principally to the stock on hand at
the time of the fire, and its value.
In cross-examination it was elected
that he had made q bill of sale Of
his stock and fixtures in favor of
Mr.. Whiting, few days before the
fire, in order to furnish security to
the parties who acted as bondsmen
for him in an opium case in which
he was defendant. A wide differ
ence was found TO exist betwixt the
appraisers valuation of the stock
and the amount of the invoices, the
former being considerably in excess.
This difference was accounted for
by large quantity of the goods, as
alleged by plaintiff, having been
destroyed at the time of the fire,
and consequently were not in stock
when the appraisement was made.
This allegation was cOrroborated by
Mr.. Creighton, who testified that
having had access to the books he
drew up II schedule showing proof
of loss.
Mr.. Whiting read q deposition by
Mr.. Paul Neumann in which he
CHR. NJ stated that he did not take
away certain laces, prepared for
delivery to him by Mr.. Michiels,
and assigning his reasons therefor.
Mr.. Whiting also took the stand,
and testified that the bill of sale
transferring the property to him was
made out by Mr.. Neumann for the
purpose of securing Mr.. Michiels'
bondsmen in the opium case. There
was no monetary transaction and
the document was merely looked
upon as security for the bonds
men. One of the appraisers was
examined at length as to the esti-
mates of value made by him and
his associate.
The appraisers valuation was
| S7,376.S4.
Mr.. L. NJ. Hatch of counsel for
the Insurance companies moved that
the plaintiff be nonsuited on
account of the showing that the
ensured property had been trans
ferred without the consent of the
insurance company, the policy Of
the Hartford Insurance Co. express
ly STIMULATING that any transfer or
assignment by the insured without
consent of the company made the
policy null and void. In support
of his motion the attorney quoted
several authorities.
Mr.. Creighton contested the mo-
ton, asserting that the transfers
meant in the policies, must be
actual and recorded transfers, where
as the one made by Michiels was
but temporary and not in any way
such as would tend to invaldate the
insurance. The weight of authori-
ties was against the motion, and
counsel quoted in support from 2
Pickering p. 249; Towards Practice
Reports volumes 2-7 PIP. 341-27S (;
IL Aliens Report p. 3S1, and
others. Mr.. Whiting followed, sup
porting the position taken by Mr..
Creighton.
Thursday, April 81
DECISION on THE QUESTION OF NON
His Honor in deciding the motion
for nonsuit in the case of Michel
VS.. Hartford Insurance Co., said +:
The question argued and submitted
to the Court is, whether q nonsuit
should be sustained on account OF
an assignment Of the property hay
ing been made, by bill of sale
given to Mr.. Whiting and the policy
(of insurance. thereby rendered
void. AS against the primo .fdcit
conclusion that a forfeiture has been
made by the change of title, the
counsel for the plaintiff adduce au-
thorities to the effect that where an
insurable interest remains in the in.
sured he may recover although he
may have mortgaged his entire in
terest, or even have assigned 1t in